Poll: Anti-Vax content on AvCanada

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If news would evolve into some kind of tutorial or lecture, for those who really care, our society would make a giant leap forward.

But I know, that is unrealistic. Which is a shame.

Well I for one have no wish to be lectured to by the evening news. Your argument here is rather paternalistic.

Maybe. But if you have no desire to understand the subject in depth, then what do you hope to gain from a discussion?

I have no issues with tutorial / lecture type broadcasts, even if they're publicly funded. In fact, I do watch some of them, and listen to quite a bit of talk radio, which is always rife with opinion. But I don't want that to come from the news, which should be informing me of what happened, not why it happened. That should be left to formats designed for opinion and discussion, not formats designed to simply inform - much like the opinion pages of print media (when it's one correctly).

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

We should always consider all points of view, even the most unpopular. Otherwise, we simply will not see the full picture of everything that happens. I am totally for

Newton discovered gravity, 200+ years later Einstein proved he was wrong. And now we have articles that say "scientists are coming for Einstein"
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ei ... cna1038671

Useless to us, but worthwhile among expert researchers.

Even so called "settled science" gets supplanted with more research. The COVID or VAX stuff isn't even anywhere near "settled".

The "there is no debate" crowd is wrong, but they are right that scientific debates are useless to us.

Fortunately, we don't need to fully understand "science" in order to make good decisions. If you learn how to manage risks, you can compensate for lack of expertise in understanding science.

You're "right" that Newton was "wrong". But remember this: I can fully well use nothing more than Newtonian physics to perfectly accurately calculate where a howitzer shell will land. It is far more correct to say that Newton wasn't wrong - his theory is merely an incomplete simplification of Einstein's.

The same thing happens in medical science when we don't yet know the full picture.

[OneYonge]

You're "right" that Newton was "wrong". But remember this: I can fully well use nothing more than Newtonian physics to perfectly accurately calculate where a howitzer shell will land. It is far more correct to say that Newton wasn't wrong - his theory is merely an incomplete simplification of Einstein's.

The same thing happens in medical science when we don't yet know the full picture.

Noone would ever suggest you throw out everything Newton got right just because some were "wrong".
Sometimes things still work even though the principle behind it was not what you thought.

You say Newton's was just incomplete, I read he actually got some things wrong and incompatible...im not smart enough to argue or understand the difference. But that isn't the point.

It is that the non-scientists who say "there is no debate"...really have no idea.

We aren't involved in the Science, and we don't really need the whole picture and full understanding to make good decisions.

[BigQ]

Yes, it should be allowed. This is a forum. Where we discuss ideas. In a civil manner.

Ideas about aviation in Canada. Find another forum to spread anti-mask and anti-vax bullsh*t.

As my esteemed colleague mentioned above, it's in the covid subforum on avcanada. Evidently, if it wasn't on topic, we wouldn't have a subforum, now would we?

Also, how does one know "it's bullshit" or not? Ultimately, we prove the science, and then we discuss the ideas. Since we would then have proof, through the use of logic and evidence, the discuss would prove to "unbelievers" that the science is right. And then the discussion would end, with everyone taking the science as fact.

Now we are in a situation where the science is still iffy on some things pandemic-wise, the messaging from TPTB is strong, and the discussion is quashed. How can we go about actually improving society like that?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Also, how does one know "it's bullshit" or not? Ultimately, we prove the science, and then we discuss the ideas. Since we would then have proof, through the use of logic and evidence, the discuss would prove to "unbelievers" that the science is right. And then the discussion would end, with everyone taking the science as fact.

Now we are in a situation where the science is still iffy on some things pandemic-wise, the messaging from TPTB is strong, and the discussion is quashed. How can we go about actually improving society like that?

Username checks out. (I assume the Q stands for "Question" and not "Q400"?)

[shimmydampner]

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!

Ah yes. Let's abandon critical thinking and just follow the herd. And then celebrate our wilful logical fallacy. When has that approach ever failed the human race?